For those who think Bush is the problem...read.

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

29th April 2010, 06:24
Eki

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Yes...and in Bob's world, he gets hurt, the hospital sends him the bill...or his insurance looks after it. Take your pick. The only difference is Eki is Americans like having that choice..and they have seen how the Medicare program is all screwed up and they were reluctant to let Gov't do that now....

I think another difference is that Bob's hospital and insurance company try to profit from Bob. If Bob gets hurt, the hospital makes profit, if Bob doesn't get hurt, the insurance company makes profit. Either way, Bob pays.
29th April 2010, 08:06
Bob Riebe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eki

I think another difference is that Bob's hospital and insurance company try to profit from Bob. If Bob gets hurt, the hospital makes profit, if Bob doesn't get hurt, the insurance company makes profit. Either way, Bob pays.

That is why I did not carry insurance.
29th April 2010, 12:45
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eki

The insurance companies could try to find real jobs instead of feeding from peoples' misfortunes.

Today, I was at a private dentist. The dentist bills the city on her own rate and the city bills me on their own cheaper rate. The tax payers (me included) pay the gap. No need for insurance companies to skim money from the middle. The city acts as an insurance company, but they don't expect any profit.

You obviously have no clue how the health insurance industry works here. Yes, it was complicated. The new "law" did nothing to correct those complications, nor did it do anything to drive down costs.

As for "skiming money", what do you think the government will do if they control the whole thing? They are all perfect angels, right? There is no waste, fraud, or abuse in a government system, right? There aren't layers upon layers of needless beurocracy in government, right? Come on.
29th April 2010, 12:48
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eki

I think another difference is that Bob's hospital and insurance company try to profit from Bob. If Bob gets hurt, the hospital makes profit, if Bob doesn't get hurt, the insurance company makes profit. Either way, Bob pays.

In your system, you pay the government. If you get hurt the government makes money on taxes, and then they'll probably raise them too. If you don't get hurt the government makes money on taxes, and they'll probably raise them then too.

Just because government doesn't make "profit", doesn't mean that you're not overpaying for services.
29th April 2010, 12:52
EuroTroll

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

In your system, you pay the government. If you get hurt the government makes money on taxes, and then they'll probably raise them too. If you don't get hurt the government makes money on taxes, and they'll probably raise them then too.

Just because government doesn't make "profit", doesn't mean that you're not overpaying for services.

I'm not so familiar with your new health care legislation, but wasn't the major underlying problem the fact that Americans pay way more for their health care than anyone else in the Western world?
29th April 2010, 16:14
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kristjan

I'm not so familiar with your new health care legislation, but wasn't the major underlying problem the fact that Americans pay way more for their health care than anyone else in the Western world?

I've always been a bit skeptical of that figure. I don't know if they figure in taxes, fees, etc. that other countires pay. Are they really comparing apples and oranges?

And even if we do pay more, so what? As long as I'm getting good quality health care I'm willing to pay for it. Is money really everything? Look at it this way. There are two ways to get your apendix taken out. One is the "old" way of slicing your gut open and pulling it out. That opens you up for infections, complecations, and has a fairly long recovery time. The other is the "new" way where they go in through your belly button with a scope and suck it out. There is little risk of infection, complecations, and the recovery is swift. Now the "old" way is cheap, and the "new" way is more expensive. And that's not the only example like this. So is cost really everything?
29th April 2010, 16:33
Mark in Oshawa

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eki

I think another difference is that Bob's hospital and insurance company try to profit from Bob. If Bob gets hurt, the hospital makes profit, if Bob doesn't get hurt, the insurance company makes profit. Either way, Bob pays.

Why shouldn't Bob pay? Like most Americans, he wants something, he will make money and pay for it. You think your healthcare is free? I have "free" healthcare in Canada to the extent beyond most of Europe. I have no private option short of driving to the US for it. Yet I am paying a very high level of taxes for it, and I am in the middle class.

Yes, there is a role for some minimum level of healthcare in society. I think the poor and uninsured should be looked after, but those making a good living usually would be quite willing to pay for a higher quality healthcare. AS Chuck has pointed out in his posts, "Cheap" doesn't always mean better...
29th April 2010, 16:33
EuroTroll

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

I've always been a bit skeptical of that figure. I don't know if they figure in taxes, fees, etc. that other countires pay. Are they really comparing apples and oranges?

And even if we do pay more, so what? As long as I'm getting good quality health care I'm willing to pay for it. Is money really everything? Look at it this way. There are two ways to get your apendix taken out. One is the "old" way of slicing your gut open and pulling it out. That opens you up for infections, complecations, and has a fairly long recovery time. The other is the "new" way where they go in through your belly button with a scope and suck it out. There is little risk of infection, complecations, and the recovery is swift. Now the "old" way is cheap, and the "new" way is more expensive. And that's not the only example like this. So is cost really everything?

Is health care in Canada, for example, of lower quality than in the US? I've read that Canadians spend about 10% of their GDP on health care each year, while the Americans spend about 15%. I don't know how accurate that is. But if it's true, it would strongly indicate that your existing way of administering health care was inefficient.
29th April 2010, 16:38
Mark in Oshawa

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kristjan

I'm not so familiar with your new health care legislation, but wasn't the major underlying problem the fact that Americans pay way more for their health care than anyone else in the Western world?

They pay more in a visible way, but pay less taxes. Furthermore, they have choices and can make more decisions on their care. In a gov't system, certain treatments or procedures may not be available. Americans have only their ability to pay as a restriction... Which may sound like only an option for the rich, but it does point out that one size fits all healthcare is rationed. It makes it a slave to the state, and it becomes an entitlement that chews up large amounts of the budget and makes medical care a political football. All of these things annoy Americans...because America was created to be free off but minimal state encroachment into the private lives of its citizens. It isn't that way now...and people are resenting it.
29th April 2010, 16:44
EuroTroll

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

All of these things annoy Americans...because America was created to be free off but minimal state encroachment into the private lives of its citizens. It isn't that way now...and people are resenting it.

Ok. When you put it like that, I can understand it.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page